Cohea v. Tucker et al

Filing 8

ORDER VACATING Order Granting In Forma Pauperis, signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 6/19/15: No later than July 10, 2015, Plaintiff must remit to the Clerk of the Court the full amount of the unpaid filing fee or this matter will be dismissed without further notice. (Hellings, J)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DANNY JAMES COHEA,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01544-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER VACATING ORDER
GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.
H. TUCKER, et al.,
Defendants.

Danny James Cohea, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis,1 filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cohea is confined at the
California State Prison, Corcoran, where the acts giving rise to this action occurred. In his
Complaint Cohea acknowledges that he has filed “several” lawsuits while a prisoner.
Cohea further states that, with respect to the requirement to describe those lawsuits, all of
the information is “unknown”—including the names of the plaintiff.2
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or
more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought
an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

1

Docket 4.

2

The Court notes with displeasure that, although he signed the Complaint under
penalty of perjury, it is inherently implausible that Cohea could not know the name of the
plaintiff in cases in which he was the plaintiff.
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Cohea v. Tucket, 1:14-cv-01544-RRB - 1

relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.3
The Court notes that Cohea has previously filed several actions that were dismissed
for a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4 Most recently in this District:
Cohea v. Grannis, 1:12-cv-01739-LJO-MJS (E.D. Calif); Cohea v. Melo, 1:15-cv-00353AWI-DLB (E.D. Calif) (also invoking the three-strikes rule);5 and Cohea v. Jones, 2:12-cv01294-WBS-EFB (E.D. Calif).
Cohea appears to attempt to the circumvent the three-strikes rule by including in his
caption “Imminent Danger of Physical Injury.” Cohea’s Complaint challenges disciplinary
actions, resulting in his confinement in the prison’s Security Housing Unit (“SHU”), with the
resultant loss of privileges and good time credits. How and to what extent the challenged
actions create a significant risk of imminent danger of physical injury is both unexplained
and inexplicable. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Court in in Melo rejected Cohea’s
argument that the conditions of his confinement created an imminent danger exception.6
Nothing in the pending Complaint persuades the Court to reach a contrary result.

3

28 U.S.C. § 1983(g).

4

The Court takes judicial notice of these cases. Fed. R. Evid. 201.

5

Citing Cohea v. Bray, 2:97-cv-0366-FCD-DAD (E.D. Cal.), Cohea v. Access
Secure Pak, 3:09-cv-0679-RCJ-RAM (D. Nev.), and Cohea v. Patzloff, 3:10-cv-0437-IEGRBB (S.D. Cal.).
6

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Cohea’s appeal in Melo sua sponte stating that “the
appeal is so insubstantial as to not warrant further review, it shall not be permitted to
proceed.” In re Danny James Cohea, Respondent, Case No. 08-80123 (9th Cir. May 12,
2015).
ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Cohea v. Tucket, 1:14-cv-01544-RRB - 2

ORDER
Accordingly, the Order Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis at
Docket 4 is hereby vacated as improvidently entered.
Not later than July 10, 2015, Cohea must remit to the Clerk of the Court the full
amount of the unpaid filing fee or this matter will be dismissed without further notice.
In the event Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time specified,
or such additional time as the Court in its discretion may allow, the Complaint may
be dismissed without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th of June, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Cohea v. Tucket, 1:14-cv-01544-RRB - 3